Workout question on order of repeats

Hey Look!. A thread about running.

I have no idea why you would start with the longer intervals first. Maybe for more emphasis on strength over speed???

Workouts like the 2nd were a staple of my highschool program. Ex. 4x200, 3x400, 2x600, 800, 2x600, 3x400, 4x200. 1st half at 2 mile pace and then try to crank up the speed on the way down, especially on the 400s and 200s.

Exactly so why the other way around? Somebody must know or is it just an idea by a coach without having a reason.

i think ending with 800s is fine. it keeps you wary of not pushing too much earlier because you still have a final 800 to do. you can be really tired and sprint a 400 but 800 is another story.

ray wrote:

I have seen several coaches suggest a workout that goes something like: 8-6-4-4-6-8 w/90 secs rest

Other than pace work, I am not sure why you would not do that workout as 4-6-8-8-6-4 trying to finish coming down faster than you did going up. Say the first half of teh workout at 3k pace, teh second half at 1500 pace or faster.

And I'm not sure why your workout is better. Do you think it makes a big difference? Maybe you're over-thinking it.

I think more common are breakdowns like 16-12-8-6-4 with short rest. The idea is to practice running fast when you're tired.

You should never start the workout with the longest rep for the simple reason that the first repeat is difficult because you are never warmed up properly. Prior to a distance race a 600 repeat is advantageous for just that reason. Strides after a 20 minute run just doesn't cut it.

coaching 101 wrote:

You should never start the workout with the longest rep for the simple reason that the first repeat is difficult because you are never warmed up properly. Prior to a distance race a 600 repeat is advantageous for just that reason. Strides after a 20 minute run just doesn't cut it.

Are you kids in High School?

This is the worst reasoning I think I've heard. You should warm up to be ready to go, training or race it's the same routine.

We would do the following workout at Stanford. It was a ball buster: 2k-1600-1200-800-400-800-1200-1600-2000.

We also ran ladders the other way. The first is for strength endurance, it is harder, teaches you to push longer at the end. Good for 8k-12k training.

There is no recovery before the last 400 in a race, this prepares you for that. There's science behind it as well, if you care to go into it let me know.

The Animal Within wrote:

Are you kids in High School?

This is the worst reasoning I think I've heard. You should warm up to be ready to go, training or race it's the same routine.

We would do the following workout at Stanford. It was a ball buster: 2k-1600-1200-800-400-800-1200-1600-2000.

We also ran ladders the other way. The first is for strength endurance, it is harder, teaches you to push longer at the end. Good for 8k-12k training.

There is no recovery before the last 400 in a race, this prepares you for that. There's science behind it as well, if you care to go into it let me know.

I learned a variation of this workout from a HS teammate who ran for Tennessee;

1600-1200-800-400-400-800-1200-1600 with 1/2 distance recovery at 5k pace.

What's your take on the science?